Appeal No. 97-2881
Application No. 08/387,166
as argued by the examiner (Answer, page 6). Thus, even if we
assume for the sake of argument that it would have been
obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the
teachings of Kraft and Kothe, the combined teachings would
lack the claimed non-conductive substrate in the form of an
enclosure, and the triggering of an alarm via a short circuit.
In view of the foregoing, the obviousness rejection of
claims 1, 4, 6 through 9 and 12 based upon the teachings of
Kraft and Kothe is reversed.
Zuver discloses a movement-sensitive switch 94 in an
opened condition (Figure 2), and in a closed conditioned
whereby an alarm is triggered when a safe is lifted from the
floor (Figure 4). Although Zuver discloses two wall
conductors 72 and 74 (Figure 3) that can be shorted together
by a drill, the two conductors are not on a non-conductive
substrate enclosure that is mounted on an exterior wall of a
building.
The obviousness rejection of claims 2, 3, 5, 10 and 11 is
reversed because the teachings of Zuver do not cure the noted
shortcomings in the teachings of Kraft and Kothe.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007